1 Corinthians 11. 2–16, because of the social concerns of much contemporary exegesis and theology, has provided a rich vein from which to quarry materials for current feminist agendas. However, exegetes have tended to neglect the ‘male issue’ in this text and the Corinthian context underlying it. The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the most plausible matrix of the practices addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 11. 4 when he refers to . Numerous exegetical issues and ancient social practices relevant to a full study of 1 Cor 11. 2–16 do not fall within the purview of this narrow investigation. Questions such as the origin and character of Paul's views of women as well as their apparel, and the question of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs concerning the veiling of women in their domestic and street apparel will not be broached here.

On reconnaît en principe que le Nouveau Testament parle de la mort de Jésus de plusieurs façons différentes. Nous en possédons quelques classifications, telles que celles de Bultmann et de Theissen établies pour les épîtres pauliniennes, la première souvent reprise dans les théologies bibliques postérieures et étendue à l'ensemble de l'univers néotestamentaire. En pratique cependant, à quelques exceptions près, l'exégèse les étudie séparément, selon l'occurrence d'une représentation dans un livre donné ou d'un livre à l'autre. On a peu abordé avec la même rigueur d'analyse et la même fécondité leur articulation entre elles, leur articulation avec leurs contextes médiats et immédiats et avec les récits de la Passion, l'incidence de leur multiplicité sur la signification de la mort qu'elles nous présentent.

The foregoing excerpt from Watts' Logicke is remarkable in a number of respects, not the least of which is the suggestion that Enlightenment Christians engaged in rhetorical criticism of the Bible by applying to it various canons of ‘logic’ or ‘rhetoric’ developed in conversation with the rhetors of classical antiquity. To my knowledge, this chapter in the history of biblical hermeneutics has yet to be written. For interests at hand, however, what calls for notice is Watts' remark about Paul's use of a particular rhetorical figure. According to Watts, when Paul says, ‘I speak like man’, he marks his argument as ad hominem. This means that he adopts a premise of his interlocutor, a premise which he himself may not affirm, in order to make a point. No doubt Watts had in mind Rom 3. 5, Gal 3. 15, and 1 Cor 9. 8, where Paul's λ⋯γω (λ⋯λω) κατ⋯ ἄνθρωπον suggested to him the Latin expression argumentum ad hominem. As we shall see, Watts was mistaken in this identification but correct in his judgment about at least one of the arguments in which Paul says, ‘I speak like a man.’

Over a century ago, Sören Kierkegaard remarked that Paul's thorn in the flesh ‘seems to have afforded an uncommonly favorable opportunity for everyone to become an interpreter of the Bible’. Adolf Deissmann suggested that a small library could be gathered together all dealing with Paul's illness. However, Lenski thinks we have ‘nothing but hypotheses’. Some say certainty about the identification of Paul's thorn is ‘unattainable’, that ‘nobody knows exactly what it was’ and that not even the Corinthians knew what the metaphor meant.

In meinem Aufsatz über ‘Die literarische Vorgeschichte von Joh 6, 26–58’ habe ich nachzuweisen versucht, daβ die ‘Lebensbrotrede’ des JohEv das Ergebnis einer redaktionellen Komposition ist. Als ihren Verfasser sehe ich den ‘Evangelisten’ an, jenen Repräsentanten einer Gruppe oder ‘Schule’, dem wir das JohEv in seiner vorliegenden Gestalt verdanken. In ihm hat er die mündlichen Überlieferungen und schriftlichen Zeugnisse des johanneischen Christentums gesammelt, redigiert und auf die konkrete Lebensund Glaubenssituation der johanneischen Gemeinden zur Zeit der Abfassung des JohEv ausgerichtet. Neben einem ‘Grundevangelium’ und mündlichen bzw. schriftlichen Traditionen hat er dabei m.E. einen ‘Dialog Jesu mit den Juden’ verwendet.